The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-02-07
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.
Hon. Byron K. Elliott, Chief-justice.
The following opinions were rendered Feb. S:

The following opinions were rendered Feb 5:
coNTRAcT-PARoL EVIDENCE.
1878 Henry r. Studabaker VS.. David Low.
Jay, c. G. Affirmed. Elliott, C. J-Where in
a contract it was agreed that sum of money
should be paid upon condition that railroad
company shall build said railroad and have the
same completed to the said town of Decatur
parol evidence that the parties agreed that the
railroad should be one built from Toledo, o., is
nadmissible, the contract being free from am
bguity. The proposed evidence would put an
important stipulation into the contract. which
is prohibited.
JURISDICTION NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
13440. Center Township VS.. Board of Commits
sioners Of Marion County. Tippecanoe C. G.
Affirmed Howk, J.-Where a court upon ap-
plicatop, grants change of venue to court
having jurisdiction of the subject matter. if the
parties do not object at the time. they
topped to afterward question the jurisdiction of
the latter court. f2) Where Judgment is re-
versed by the Supreme Court with instructions
to render judgment in accordance with the opin-
ion, the trial court has no power TO rem
der different judgment upon mo-
ton by attorneys for arrest of Judgment
and correction of the special findings.
49, Upon return of the to the court below
with instructions to enter judgment in accord
ance with the opinion, 1t was claimed that there
mistake of fact in tho special findings
which was q mutual mistake, and motion in
arrest was made. This question was presented
on petition for rehearng and the rehearing
was denied. This was the end of the case and
of all matters which were or might have been
lltigated. The motion was properly overruled.
Ga. Where a party asks TO be relieved from q
judgment because of mistake in the finding
which, it s claimed was mutual, equity will not
afford relief when it appears that both parties
| were in court and could, by the exercise of or
binary and reasonable diligence. have obtained
full knowledge of the fact concerning which
there was a mistaken finding.
TOWNSHIP TRUsTEE-BRIBERY-IND
| 13409 Urista Glover vs. State. Fountain c.
| G. Affirmed. collars. J.-Indctment of a
| township trustee under Sec. 1000, for accepting
| money bribe in purchasing sehoolfurEiture.
The indictment need not state the kind of furni-
| ture purchased. The amount. quality or de-
| scription were immateriaL The gravamen of the
| case the offense as defined by statute l. is
| immaterial whether the contract of purchase
| was enforceable not t2l Inasmuch as the
| prosecutor may be put to an election as to
which court he will ask a conviction. it seems
aictment be quashed because of mis-
joinder, unless it clearly appears upon
it's face that different and distinct
| crimes are charged in different counts which
| cannot DO joined in the same indictments; and
unless the prosecution declines to elect and man
ifests purpose to insist upon q conviction upon
| each count, where the record does not show that
| the overriding of the motion to quash in any
way pre]udiced the rights Of tho appellant, the
court will not reverse r. The record does not
| show any reason why the court should have re-
quired the prosecutor to elect. and the cause
will not be reversed therefor
1912. James Gerathy State. Rush G. C
| Motion to reinstate sustained.
12S40. Charles Snow ct al vs.. l., B. 81 w
Railway Company. Clinton C. G. Rehearin,
denied.
/ Superior Court.
| Room 1-Hon. Napoleon B. Taylor. Judge.
Evangeline Davis VS.. John W. Davis; divorce
Granted, and custody of children OH account O
cruel treatment